Miers Sobriety

Yesterday Hugh Hewitt pointed to a couple pieces on Harriet Miers that I happened to miss but deserve widespread attention.

Hewitt has been a staunch defender of the Miers nomination but is forced to admit that Jack Kelly's latest column is enough to give pause to the anti-anti-Miers crowd (which, incidentally, I think should either admit they're pro-Miers or drop a term that reminds me way too much of the "anti-anti-communists" of the Sixties).

[It] is one thing to give the president the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence, another to continue giving him that benefit in the face of evidence ... If Ms. Miers were as smart and as conservative as Mr. Bush said she was, criticism should have abated as we learned more about her. It hasn't worked out that way ... If Ms. Miers were as the president described her, there was much to be said for a "stealth" nominee ... It's hard to find supporters of Harriet Miers beyond the president and the First Lady ... The president needs to pull the plug on this nomination. He needs to fill in this hole before it gets deeper. If he keeps digging, his enemies will fill it in over his head.

Hugh contrasts Kelly's piece with John Hinderaker's words of caution that Republican opposition to Miers may cause much more long-term damage to both the party and future makeup of the Supreme Court than her confirmation would, even in the event that her detractors' worst fears are realized.

REPUBLICANS HAVE LONG TAKEN the position that, because it is the president's prerogative to select Supreme Court justices, any nominee who is qualified and doesn't subscribe to an extreme judicial philosophy should be confirmed. Some Miers critics seem now to imply a new standard by mocking Miers as undistinguished, or by pointing out how much more qualified other potential nominees would have been. Such attacks carry a hazard. Until now, the judicial confirmation process has never been seen as one where senators can reject a qualified nominee on the ground that he or she isn't the nominee the senators wanted, or the one the senators consider the best.

Excellent points all. And I think Hugh is pretty much on the mark today when he writes that there's no real upside to any Republican senator voting against Miers.

To those who, like Senators Graham and DeWine, took the most heat for the Gang of 14 deal, or like Senators Chafee and Snowe, facing re-election with restive conservative bases, or even stalwart Jon Kyl, facing a deep pockets opponent in Arizona, smashing up the president nominee just doesn't figure to be a good move. Try explaining to the Arizona Pro-life Network why Miers wasn't good enough.

I've been opposed to the Miers nomination from the outset, namely because I still believe Bush ducked away from a confrontation with Senate Democrats (which admittedly may have been wise politically considering Republican senators don't seem to be inclined to fight for a strong conservative nominee) and made it clear that he placed affirmative action and political correctness above merit (if only by definition alone) when he practically discounted the possibility of replacing O'Connor with a man - both of which suggest, however potentially untrue, that Ms. Miers isn't nearly as good a candidate as Bush supporters deserved.

That said, I still hold the Constitution in higher regard than my personal fancies. The president gets to appoint replacements for the Supreme Court; Ms. Miers deserves her interview with the Senate. Alas, this does not mean that conservatives and Republicans will necessarily be able to avoid this apparent Catch-22, where either outcome of this nomination may bear undesirable consequences in the future.